OK, somebody understands.

Yes, you can get a better picture with a large-sensor DSLR with a wheelbarrow full of lenses and accessories. Probably $2,000 -- $3,000 would do it nicely.

But this was a snapshot from a camera that, without any changes or accessories or fiddling around, my very next photo could have been a full-frame picture of a small flower taken from half an inch away, and the one after that a head and shoulders portrait taken from 20 feet.

This camera allows me to take photos that would be difficult if not impossible with a typical DSLR without having to carry around a lot of kit. (Remember this?) I don't take pictures for magazine covers or wall-sized posters, I take them for my own enjoyment. Every once in a while one of them turns out (IMHO, not necessarily yours) to be fairly attention-grabbing.

BTW, I probably didn't make myself clear that I was joking (thus the ) about the "...better than any DSLR..." bit. I know that DSLR cameras have the potential (with appropriate len$e$) to take pictures that are technically better than my camera can take. It's just that I am not willing to give up my enormous flexibility and ease of use, things like 25-600mm focal length (2400mm with digital zoom) at f2.8, metered built-in flash to 40+ feet, 60fps burst shooting mode, HD video, built-in stitching, high dynamic range shooting, etc. in order to gain marginal improvements in picture quality that will be difficult to detect at 8x10 inches or smaller.

As always, YMMV.

tanstaafl.

ps: Cris--It is with some trepidation (after all, you being a professional photographer there is a small chance that you just might know more about it than I do. ) that I disagree with your statement "...the colour balance is off...". If, due to dust or whatever in the air and nearness to the horizon the moon looks to be that color to the eye, should I then alter the photograph to conform with what its conventional color usually is?